Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1988-05-16 5-16-88 I Seal Beach, California May 16, 1988 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. Councilman Clift led the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Wilson Councilmembers Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner Absent: None Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Mr. Knight, Director of Development Services Mr. Jue, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mr. Osteen, Recreation Director Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Risner moved, second by Hunt, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I PRESENTATION Councilmember Risner noted that Pat McCormick, Seal Beach resident, would be presenting her Olympic gold medals to the Olympic Hall of Fame and reported she would be presenting the City plaque designating May 26th as "Pat McCormick Day in Seal Beach" to the Olympian at a dinner in her honor on that date. PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Wilson proclaimed May 22nd through May 28th as "Traffic Safety Week in Seal Beach." The Mayor proclaimed "National Public Works Week" for the period of May 15th through May 21st, 1988. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3784 - INVESTMENT POLICY - 1987/88 Resolution Number 3784 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT AND FILING OF THE ANNUAL STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR THE YEAR 1987/88." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3784 was waived. Risner moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3784 as presented. I AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried PROPOSED RESOLUTION NUMBER 3785 - SWIMMING POOL FEES At the request of staff, proposed Resolution Number 3785 "ESTABLISHING FEES FOR THE COMMUNITY SWIMMING POOL AND FOR THE CITY'S AQUATIC RECREATION AND INSTRUCTION PROGRAM" was held over until the next meeting by unanimous consent of the Council. 5-16-88 CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS .F. THROUGH "L. Councilman Hunt requested that Item .L. be removed from the Consent Calendar, Councilman Grgas requested items .G. and .K" removed, and the City Attorney asked that Item .J" be removed for correction. Clift moved, second by Grgas, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Items "G, J, K, and L., as presented. F. Approved the minutes of the regular meeting of April 4, 1988. I H. Approved the minutes of the regular meeting of April 18, 1988. I. Approved regular demands numbered 70106 through 70268 in the amount of $424,003.13, and payroll demands numbered 30157 through 32336 in the amount of $172,573.62 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. AYES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "G. - MINUTES - APRIL 5. 1988 Councilman Grgas stated he would abstain from voting on this item as he was absent from that meeting. Clift moved, second by Hunt, to approve the minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of AprilS, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Clift, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried I ITEM "J. - AGREEMENT - SENIOR NUTRITION TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM The City Attorney recommended that Section 3 of the Agreement be amended to read ....the issuing company shall mail 30 days written notice to the certificate holder named.. Risner moved, second by Clift, to approve the Agreement between the City and the Orange County Consolidated Transportation Service Agency for the Senior Nutrition Transportation Program for 1987/88 as amended. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ITEM "K. - ROUGH WATER SWIM - ESTIMATE OF COSTS The City Manager reviewed the staff report and explained the costs estimated to provide City labor and materials in conjunction with the 1988 Rough Water Swim, $1174.46. Acknowledging the communication received this date from the Rough Water Swim Committee, Councilman Grgas noted their request that the beach not be swept on the morning of the event, the Committee offering to rake the staging area, that I electrical power will be necessary however electrician services for wiring would not as that could be accomplished by volunteers, that the request for parking spaces has been reduced from twenty-seven to twelve, all of which would reduce the costs for the event. The City Manager stated there would be concern with allowing anyone other than the City electricians to work on the electrical system, however if the Committee were to provide a licensed electrician, that may be acceptable if under the supervision of the City employee, that the beach cleanup would be allowed if done in 5-16-88 I accordance with City standards, noting also that the number of parking spaces was calculated by staff based upon past use. With regard to the electrical needs, the City Engineer advised that the cost was based upon providing service from the deck of the pier to the bandstand and the public address system, estimated at twelve hours labor, overtime with benefits. The City Manager clarified that the staff estimate is for full cost recovery, the Swim Committee having been advised of this policy a year ago, and noted that the lifeguard boat would not normally be in service during the hours that were requested, thus the charge for that service. Mr. Arthur DeBolt, Swim Club President, and Mrs. Betty Weir, Meet Director, advised the Council of their willingness to pay for City services as long as they are fairly based, however questioned the need for the City electricians and the number of hours estimated, the need for additional lifeguards or the charge for what may be within their normal duties, the charge for the lifeguard boat and for beach cleanup. Discussion continued. The City Manager explained that the estimate of the Lifeguard Department included additional coverage for those persons participating in the event and just as important, coverage of others who are in attendance, that the administrative fee is one-half of the City's overhead, and the charges are the result of the policy established for full cost recovery for City services for events conducted within the City. He stated that the committee will be billed for the actual costs over and above the deposit subsequent to the event, and that he felt there are further means for the Committee to reduce the services and materials requested of the City. Mr. Nelson asked that the Council policy for cost recovery be made clear, as well as any changes or exceptions thereto that the Council may desire, so that the staff can administer the policy equally. I Mayor Wilson moved to support the cost estimate for the 1988 Rough Water Swim not to exceed $1174.46. Councilmember Risner seconded the motion. I After further discussion, Councilman Grgas moved a substitute motion to delete two hours of labor costs for beach cleanup, eliminate the $135 charge for materials, and if the Committee can provide one or two volunteer electricians for the electrical hookup that that cost be reduced accordingly. Mr. Grgas added that he felt the administrative cost was a legitimate charge. Councilmember Risner stated that although she did not support the administrative charge, she would second the substitute motion. Mayor Wilson and Councilman Hunt indicated their opposition to the motion, stating their feeling that the policy for cost recovery to be correct so long as the cost does not exceed the estimate. Councilman Clift spoke in support of the motion to delete the charges for beach cleanup and materials, moved to amend the substitute motion to also delete the Charge for the lot attendent, and that any consideration of volunteer electrician services be omitted from the motion. The amendment to the substitute motion was accepted. Vote on the substitute motion as amended: AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Risner Hunt, Wilson Motion carried ROUGH WATER SWIM BROCHURE AD Councilmember Risner moved to place a full page ad in the Rough Water Swim Brochure welcoming persons to the community and expressing appreciation to the Committee for the effort 5-16-88 that is devoted to this event. Councilman Grgas seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson Hunt Motion carried REPORT - SMOKING REGULATIONS The City Attorney noted that information had been provided to the Council at two previous meetings with regard to I smoking regulations for consideration by the Council, stating however that staff would have no recommendation on this matter. Mayor Wilson stated she felt there is a need to respect the smoker and non-smoker alike, that she opposes over-regulation and that the City does not need to incur the financial burden for policing regulations of this nature, therefore suggested that employers be urged to implement reasonable smoking policies with the benefit of the non- smoker uppermost in mind, and establish workable plans that will be carried out. There was no further action on this matter. With unanimous consent of the Council, Mayor Wilson declared a recess at 7:59 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:10 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. . DISCUSSION - CITIZENS' SENSIBLE GROWTH AND TRAFFIC CONTROL INITIATIVE The City Manager recalled that the staff analysis of the Citizens' Sensible Growth and Traffic Control Initiative had been presented to the Council at the meeting of April 18th, at which time the Council requested further discussion of the Initiative at this meeting. He stated that as indicated by his analysis there are a number of concerns with the Initiative, particularly if it were adopted only in Seal Beach, and that his recommendation would now be a vote in opposition to Measure "F". At the request of Council, Mr. Nelson again reviewed his April 13th analysis with specific focus as to Initiative's standards for traffic, flood control, emergency and non-emergency response times, park/open space standards, and potential impact on anticipated Seal Beach projects. With regard to the cost estimate to meet the Initiative standards for traffic, without future development, the City Engineer explained that Pacific Coast Highway, Westminster Boulevard, and Seal Beach Boulevard would not meet the standards of the Initiative and the estimated cost to widen those three arterials to increase capacity would be $3.8 million, and the cost estimated to widen the freeway overpass was $1.5 million. He noted that such widening would also require relocation of street lights, traffic signals, storm drains, etc., and on Pacific Coast Highway would necessitate the reduction of the width of the median to accommodate three lanes in each direction. Council questioned whether State highways are included under the Initiative. Councilman Grgas noted that the City and the Council have gone on record opposing any widening of Pacific Coast Highway, therefore if any project being considered, including Hellman, Department of Water and Power, and State Lands, were to have any impact on that Highway it could not be approved since the traffic impact could not be mitigated. The City Manager added that it has been staff's policy that Pacific Coast Highway would not be widened beyond four lanes, however reported a communication this date from Cal Trans recommending that Pacific Coast Highway be widened to six lanes throughout Orange and Los Angeles counties. Mr. Nelson pointed out that based upon the reports coming from the County and from the legal arguments there is confusion as to the terminology of the Initiative which may not be clarified until possible I I 5-16-88 litigation. studies, at mentioned. The requirement for an annual update of traffic a cost of approximately $40,000, was also I Mr. Prank Laszlo, 4480 Candleberry Avenue, stated he wished to provide additional data for information of the Council and public. He noted that much of the information in the staff report appeared to be based upon the economic analysis conducted by the Chapman College School of Business, and in questioning why Chapman was selected to do the analysis, he suggested the annual fee/contribution as a consideration for selection to participate as a member of the Business and Management Advisory Board, that Board having prepared the analysis. Mr. Laszlo also referred to the Building Industry Association lawsuit that challenged the Initiative and read portions of a news article that reported the Appellate Court had failed to block placing the Initiative on the ballot, and stated that the report of planner/consultant Walter F. Keiser which questions the basis and facts of the Chapman College report was considered by the court in the Building Industry's attempt to remove the Initiative from the ballot, and that the Keiser report should be made part of Council's information. I Mr. Russell Burkett, San Juan Capistrano, advised he was a board member of the incorporated Citizens' for Sensible Growth and Traffic Control Group, proponents of the Initiative, and Executive Director of Orange County Tomorrow. Mr. Burkett advised he was available as a resource person to respond to questions of the Council in the absence of the attorneys who were the authors of the Initaitve. He stated the Initiative is a fairly straight forward document however may require some post-election review, pre-election review having taken place through the Orange County Superior Court and the Fourth District Court of Appeals with the court dismissing the majority of the claims filed by the building industry. Mr. Burkett confirmed that Pacific Coast Highway is exempt from any Council action since the City does not have any discretionary or police power over the State highway, the Initiative calling for General Plan changes therefore would have no effect on that highway. He stated that any staff analysis to the contrary does not negate the fact that traffic impacts may come through the City by Pacific Coast Highway or other intersections, the city not required to take any action other than to encourage CalTrans to alleviate additional problems. He added that the off-ramps at 405 are probably exempt also, thus the only roadway that may need to be looked at would be Seal Beach Boulevard, however in the case of Seal Beach where no new roads or service levels are anticipated, the City's streets would fall under the Initiative subsections that apply to development that does not worsen traffic, the Initiative prevailing on the City only if development causes conditions to be worse. He added that the matter of what traffic standard will be used will be determined with the election where the Initiative calls for a higher standard for County traffic studies by using the Highway Capacity Manual, thus removing the discretionary ability of using alternate methods of comparing traffic measurements. He stated that the City will be able to borrow the County's baseline data that is being prepared as to how County standards would be applied. Mr. Burkett acknowledged that there are concerns regarding the term "adverse environmental impact" which he stated is a common term found in evironmental standards, and again stated that the Initiative only applies to the application for new development and simply requires that mitigating factors and benefits be looked at that are I 5-16-88 reasonable for the community, the Initiative saying that all improvements for infrastructure, traffic, etc., are to be to the benefit of the community, and not to create super streets that would destroy the integrity of the community. He stated further that the City will have discretion in enacting ordinances to carry out the required General Plan changes that are specific to the community, the adoption of the Initiative only establishing goals and polices to be implemented to protect the environmental aspects of the City. Councilman Hunt referred to a news article that reported it had been confirmed that the proponents had not conducted a study of the Initiative's potential effect on traffic flow, and questioned the need for Measure F if, as he understood, the intersections that were felt by staff to be effected would not have to comply to the Initiative since they are on Pacific Coast Highway, with the exception of Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster, and that an exemption was also stated for Seal Beach Boulevard in the proximity of the freeway. Mr. Burkett responded that the Initiative installs a constitutional act that says henceforth there shall be a standard and it shall be maintained, providing a safety net to protect the quality of life for future residents, noting that every investment and improvement adds value to the City. Councilman Hunt noted that the determination would then be whether the costs are worth the value that the citizens would receive for the expenditures that would be required. Mr. Burkett again stated he felt the City could use and apply the County's baseline traffic monitoring report once it is prepared, the Initiative only requiring that once a year the database be reviewed for any change thereto, noting that he felt certain the City has a fairly recent traffic study that could be utilized as a base. He added that the annual review will show the City's traffic levels in comparison to the County, and where County territory comes within the City's jurisdictional areas, if the Initiative passes there becomes a covenant between the City and County allowing negotiations for improvements that are the result of County generated traffic. Mr. Burkett again stated that without legal challenge, it was his opinion that the intersections set forth in the staff report, with the exception of Seal Beach Boulevard/ Westminster, will be exempt from the Initiative, adding that they would go to court with that opinion. Councilman Grgas questioned how a proposed project located a block away from Pacific Coast Highway, on an arterial street, could be approved without somehow making improvements on PCH, thus improvements would only be required on the arterial intersecting PCH. Mr. Burkett responded that this City becomes a special case with the existance of the State highway, and in drafting the Initiative there were some given factors that were taken into consideration therefore freeways, toll roads, and State highways were given an exempt status, and within the context of the distance of those givens the City staff would need to arrive at an interpretation and give some reality to each situation, the City retaining the power of persuasion to require some improvements when a developer comes to the City. He added that he did not feel the Initiative would be a solve-all for every intersection, and that there are a number of intersections throughout the County where there are problems that would be difficult to resolve. Councilman Grgas stated that the real concern with Seal Beach passing the Initiative is the impact that is realized from development in neighboring cities which utilize streets within this community, noting that if there are inadequate I I I 5-16-88 I service levels on Seal Beach Boulevard now, an increase of traffic would cause an adverse impact over which this City has no control, and would prevent approval of any development in this City without a substantial expenditure of money, and questioned the inequity of that situation. Mr. Burkett responded that he would hope the surrounding cities would adopt a like Initiative, however stated there is the likelihood that some cities will and some won't, that the Initiative only says that a development will not make the traffic situation worse, and is an incremental effort for improvement throughout the County. Councilmember Risner stated she felt that the persons who draft ordinances such as the Initiative do not have a total understanding of the intricacies of each individual city such as the conditions that exist in Seal Beach, and even if the State highway and possibly the freeway overpasses are excluded, the Initiative is very unclear as to whether or not roadways other than PCH and cross streets are excluded. She pointed out that a planned development in this community may be diminished or not receive approval under the terms of the Initiative, where that development has a new road plan through the project, and emphasized that Seal Beach is a planning city and requires developers to bear the cost of traffic improvements. Mrs. Risner also noted a recent news article which reported substantial increases in sales tax revenues in certain neighboring communities, where Seal Beach retail sales tax increased only 5.2 percent and decreased 5.3 percent in other sales, Seal Beach now not even keeping pace with inflation through retail sales, and further that it has been shown that City population is declining yet City streets are impacted by the increased traffic from those neighboring cities. Mr. Burkett replied that the Initiative only requires that the traffic situation not be worsened through new development and that there is no requirement for taking into consideration traffic problems of another jurisdiction, stating that if traffic is currently at a level "C" and due to a development in another area advances to level "F", a local development would not be required to mitigate back to level "C", but would be required to not make the "F" level worse, the Initiative only applying to the impact area and level of that development and requiring that attention be paid to the study of traffic. Councilman Clift stated that that is exactly what this City has done in the past, without such initiative. Mr. Burkett responded that has not been the case in other areas of the County. Councilman Grgas cited as example, if the streets, prior to a project actually being implemented, were at level "F-12" and the project did not worsen traffic it would be a potentially approvable project, however on an economy/cost scale of getting that street to a level "F-12" where substantial traffic increases are known to be the result of a development outside the City over which there is no local control, asked if it is considered equitable that millions would be required to be spent to mitigate even to the "F-12" level. Mr. Burkett replied that the question becomes when are traffic capacity levels met and exceeded, at which time the definition of levels of service comes into play and good planning would suggest that projects be deferred and phased as infrastructure improvements are made, which is why the Highway Capacity Manual was used due to its time delay methodology. He noted that the Initiative is neutral on the types of projects and provides exemptions for the single family home up to a fourplex or any development that would not cause a problem. With regard to the legal challenge to placing the Initiative on the ballot, the City Manager noted that the court ruling was predicated on a constitutionality I I 5-16-88 and conflict of law basis, with the Superior Court judge ruling that although there are some questionable legal factors in the Initiative, the Initiative was not clearly unconstitutional and, as Mr. Burkett stated, will require some post-election interpretation. Mr. Nelson inquired that if one intersection is determined to be impacted under the terms of the Initiative, such as Seal Beach Boulevard/ Westminster Avenue, would all developments in the City be subject to that impact, no matter their location within the jurisdiction. Mr. Burkett responded that his interpretation would be that if the project is within the jurisdiction of the City and if the traffic study showed that that project was not the sole mitigator of the problem the project would be responsible for it's pro rata share, pointing out however there would be nothing to prevent the City from entering into a side agreement with the developer for more extensive improvements. The City Manager again advised that very little of the through traffic originates and terminates in Seal Beach, the traffic basically originating from another county and cities, however that traffic impacts the Council and their ability to address other problems. Mr. Burkett added that if an additional finding could be made that there is nothing that a particular project could do to improve a situation, he did not feel that would prompt an action such as litigation. In response to the Council, Mr. Burkett reported that CalTrans does use the Highway Capacity Manual standards, that there was discussion with the Auto Club, certain growing cities in the County, and the Orange County Engineering Council in determining that it would be better if the Highway Capacity Manual was used exclusively, which is of higher standards. With regard to the fifteen minute response requirement for non-emergency public safety situations, Mr. Burkett stated that in working with the Emergency Medical Management Association, a County ad-hoc committee, there seemed to be a delay in determining a time element for what a non-emergency routine would be, thus the Initiative group decided to make the determination, which resulted in the fifteen minute response requirement. He stated they met with emergency groups, ambulance companies, used all available definitions under the law, etc., then made the non-emergency definition as generic as possible, which allows the cities to implement standards specific to them. The City Manager countered that the non-emergency standard would necessitate at least one additional non-sworn personnel in the Police Department without being able to attribute that cost to any development, and it would not be fair for a person to rely on the Initiative, if passed, that the City is going to have to respond eighty-five percent of the time to all calls for non-emergency situations. Councilman Hunt stated he felt that the non-emergency response time tied to this Initiative has nothing to do with traffic control, slow growth, etc., yet it is a restriction to be borne by the City. Mr. Burkett disagreed, stating that safety services must utilize the local roads, and that the City will have to make a determination as to what a non- emergency is, the definition stating it would be something other than life and property threatening, noting the categories in the Initiative of emergency, non-emergency, and routine. Mr. Frank Laszlo expressed his feeling that Measure F is necessary in Seal Beach to insure that traffic improvements are forthcoming, specifically on Seal Beach BOUlevard, Lampson Avenue, and the overpass, stated the intersection of Seal BeaCh/Lampson is already at level "F", and spoke at length regarding other intersections throughout the City that he said will soon be close to that level. He stated that the Initiative will not allow the Council to approve I I I 5-16-88 I any project that would worsen traffic conditions, such as the development planned by the Bixby Company, unless Bixby would be required to widen the overpass which would improve traffic flow in that entire area. Mr. Laszlo expressed his feeling that traffic conditions have gotten worse since the Bixby Office Park project, and that the City should be supporting Measure "F". Councilman Hunt recalled that significant improvements were made by Bixby in the area of Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson Avenue as a condition of the Office Park development, which has been the traditional action of the Council in approving development, and noted that the Initiative would not require improvements to the degree that were required of the Bixby project. Councilman Grgas stated he would not disagree that future traffic conditions will get worse over time, however if this Initiative is passed there is no guarantee that Seal Beach will have any control over worsened traffic but may be required to bear a major cost to make improvements as the result of development outside the City, also that there are a number of uncertainties in the Initiative as to its application to Pacific Coast Highway, the freeway overpass, connector streets, the Initiative actually encouraging cities to expedite their development plans, and expressed his concern with the degree of post-election review that will be required of this Initiative. Mr. Pat Kapp, J. P. Kapp and Associates, a Tustin based civil engineering firm, stated he has spent a great deal of time studying the real impacts of Measure "A" on the County, and that it appeared from Mr. Burkett's comments that there was uncertainty as to how the Initiative would work. He stated the comments in the Los Angeles Times article were interesting in that the experts concluded that the Initiative would not solve traffic problems. Mr. Kapp stated that estimates of the County Administrative Office is that the true value of the Initiative is approximately 1.5 billion dollars with less than three percent of that amount allocated to solving traffic problems, the majority directed to parks and flood control problems, and rather than providing solutions, the Initiative in fact jeopardizes solutions to traffic problems being considered in this County at the present. He noted that CalTrans facilities are not included in the Initative, and reported there is a new CalTrans District in Orange County, the budget for that District having been increased from forty to more than one hundred million dollars a year to solve basic freeway system problems, to make sure that it works and is sensitive to what has gone on in the County for the past twenty years, with twenty years of under-investment. He reported there are also two other areas where traffic solutions are proceeding at present, each in the amount of approximately five hundred million dollars, highways and streets developed before development, which could be jeopardized by the Initiative. Mr. Kapp pointed out that the backers of the Initiative are seeking General Plan amendments which will virtually limit the availability of housing in this County, and limit the ability of developers and builders to implement the infrasystem that the proponents are seeking. He added that although Seal Beach will vote on Measure "A" it only applies to County unincorporated areas and that that portion of the tax dollar which goes to the County fund will be used to solve the impacts of the 1.5 billion dollars. I I Mr. James Goodwin, 1405 Crestveiw Avenue, spoke in support of Measure "F" as he felt it would improve streets while it would not be a cost burden to the taxpayer, and compared the cost to the developer for the required improvements to the value of a development such as proposed by Mola. Mr. 5-16-88 Goodwin stated he did not feel the reasonable growth Initiative would deter future development. Mr. John Schafer, 137 - 1/2 Dolphin Avenue, suggested that plans be developed to improve City roads before the actual costs are known, and if Seal Beach Boulevard were improved up to the freeway, he stated he felt there would be considerably less traffic on Pacific Coast Highway. The members of the Council expressed their views and concerns with Initiative Measure "F", while acknowledging that some resolution to worsening traffic problems ~ill be necessary. Ms. Barbara Rountree, 319 - 12th Street, asked how a traffic study could be done on Seal Beach Boulevard at this time if it is unknown what Bixby is going to build. The Development Services Director responded that the Bixby conceptual plan identified a certain level of development, although that plan does not represent the final level of development that would ever be approved by the City Council, the intent of the traffic study is to identify what currently exists, what would happen if the project were developed, and what mitigation measures would be proposed to offset the traffic impact. He added that the recommendation could be that the mitigating measures proposed would be sufficient to offset the impacts of the development, or it could be that the development is too intense and that mitigation would not be proper for that proposed level of development. The City Manager explained that the traffic study is preliminary to an Environmental Impact Report, the EIR not prepared until a development application is submitted. Mr. Nelson explained further that the developer would have the alternatives to downgrade the development, to determine to not submit the application, or pursue the project with the belief that all impacts could be mitigated, and once that decision is made the EIR would be prepared and most likely a new traffic study. Hunt moved, second by Wilson, to take a position in opposition to Initiation Measure "F". Discussion continued. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried APPOINTMENTS - BOARDS and COMMISSIONS Pro;ect Area Committee Councilman Grgas requested that the District One appointment to the Project Area Committee be held over. Planninq Commmission Councilman Clift requested that the District Four appointment to the Planning Commission be held over. Seal Beach Cable Communications Foundation Councilman Clift nominated Dr. Kenneth Yglesias to the Seal Beach Cable Communications Foundation representing Councilmanic District Four for the unexpired term ending July, 1988. Wilson moved, second by Grgas, to approve the appointment. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Department of Water and Power Advisorv Committee Councilman Clift nominated Mr. Albert Totten to the DWP Advisory Committee representing Councilmanic District Four. Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to approve the appointment. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I I I 5-16-88 . CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilman Grgas noted that the Army Corp of Engineers have noticed their upcoming Anaheim Bay dredging project, and requested that staff pursue having some of that sand placed on the east beach. With regard to the recreation facility on the Navy Base, the City Manager advised that a change order has been initiated by the Naval Weapons Station with regard to the roof of that structure, reporting that the Base is trying to keep the cost of the project below the current allocation and avoid a congressional action for additional funds, which is somewhat dependent upon the cooperation of the contractor, however it is understood that at some point in time the roof will be flattened. Councilman Grgas requested a copy of the letter that was sent to the City's congressional representative regarding this matter. Mr. Grgas also asked that the staff look into flight pattern deviations of helicopters from Los Alamitos and commerical aircraft from Long Beach Airport. The City Manager stated the Los Alamitos Air Station has been very cooperative with regard to flights originating from that facility, however noted the City has little control over Long Beach Airport flight paths. Councilmember Risner asked if a banner could be placed over Main Street recognizing May 26th as "Pat McCormick Day In Seal Beach." Councilman Clift expressed his pleasure and enjoyment in working with the members of the City Council, the City staff, and citizens during his term on the City Council, in striving to serve the residents of Councilmanic District Four and the entire community. Mayor Wilson reported that construction of the sound wall along the 405 Freeway at Seal Beach Boulevard, behind the water reservoir, has begun, and that a letter has been forwarded to CalTrans objecting to the sound wall being placed in that location and inquiring about plans for future construction of a sound wall adjacent to Leisure World. With regard to the Corp of Engineers dredging project, the City Manager stated the staff would pursue obtaining as much of that sand as possible for the City's beaches, explaining that some of the dredged material would not be appropriate for placing on the beach thus it will be dumped offshore. I I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Frank Laszlo, 4480 Candleberry Avenue, extended appreciation to Councilman Clift for his sincere and dedicated efforts in reprersenting the residents of College Park East and the City during his term on the City Council. There being no further communications, Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications closed. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until Tuesday, May 17th at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:55 p.m. I lerk and ex-offici of Seal Beach of the Approved: Mayor Attest: